INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 9:45AM (Time), 10/22/02 Wate) File #: 95-279146

Laboratory #(s): 70728055

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Not Reviewed

Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed RQ X oO oO ia TK UQ o X oO , oa o o g QO Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Not available, pled guilty Testimony Date(s): Pages: Laboratory Report(s): Laboratory Number: 70728055 Date: Oct 23, 1987 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number: 70728055

Was any other material reviewed? X Yes OQ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letter dated July 27, 1987:

Results of Review

File #: 95-279146 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q3, K2, K3

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses |

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo = X Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? QO Yes XNo- OC Unable to Determine ; 4 Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

X Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? OYes ONo~ OC Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? 0 Yes QONo O Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes No 0 Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials: WA

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use "Additional Comments" Sheet, if needed)

File #:. 95-279146

#1. It cannot be determined from the notes if the tests were performed in a scientifically acceptable aaaiiaee Please note that the hair comparison was apparently confirmed by a second examiner.

#2. The results are not adequately documented in the notes. The notes are not dated, are in pencil instead of ink and use abbreviations difficult to interpret. The length and the number of hair examined is not documented.

Review completed at: 10:00 AM = (Time), 10/22/02 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.25 hrs. 1

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review

are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages. Fie Oct. 22, 202 (Signature) (ate)

Page 3 of 3